8mm Forum: Jurassic Park (Super 8 Germany)

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Print Reviews » Jurassic Park (Super 8 Germany)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: Jurassic Park (Super 8 Germany)

Francisco Javier Herrera
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 567
From: SPAIN
Registered: Feb 2013

posted August 12, 2013 03:47 AM

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted August 12, 2013 12:46 PM

Could you add a review with it? Nice screenshots, though, very sharp print.

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

Ernie Zahn
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 540
From: Greenwich, CT, USA
Registered: Oct 2004

posted August 12, 2013 03:18 PM

I've been thinking about getting this print. It looks brilliant! And yes I second the request for a review.

For instance are there burned in subtitles? It looks to be a flat print?

--------------------
Check out the trailer for my feature length Spaghetti-style Western:

Six and Bisti

| IP: Logged

Oemer Yalinkilic
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Berlin, Germany
Registered: Jul 2003

posted August 12, 2013 04:06 PM

The original movie is also flat and was not shot in cinemascope.

| IP: Logged

Ernie Zahn
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 540
From: Greenwich, CT, USA
Registered: Oct 2004

posted August 13, 2013 05:25 PM

Weird! It's been cropped to 16x9 for many releases then. I didn't realize that. I find that strange since so many big budget films are shot with Panavision or other widescreen deployments. Esp. Spielberg films.

--------------------
Check out the trailer for my feature length Spaghetti-style Western:

Six and Bisti

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Trevithick
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 569
From: Gold Coast Australia
Registered: May 2012

posted August 14, 2013 12:26 AM

I recall working in a small arts centre when this came out. As we had no masking plate, we had to project the full 35mm image. I am pretty sure the only widescreen moments (1.85:1) were on some of the effects shots. The rest of the film was academy ratio (4:3).
Almost all theatres would have screened it masked at 1.85:1

| IP: Logged

Lee Mannering
Film God

Posts: 3216
From: The Projection Box
Registered: Nov 2006

posted August 14, 2013 03:12 AM

Aspect 1.85:1
Remember seeing it at WB upon release in '93 and the cinema was packed full to capacity. A very memorable film which has been much messed around with ever since.

| IP: Logged

Flavio Stabile
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 707
From: Roma, Italia
Registered: Feb 2005

posted August 14, 2013 03:55 AM

In some months it will be re-issued again in cinemas with a 3D version...
Could it be avoided?

| IP: Logged

Ernie Zahn
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 540
From: Greenwich, CT, USA
Registered: Oct 2004

posted August 14, 2013 09:00 AM

Can't speak for Italy but the 3D release you speak.of already happened in the U.S. sometime ago.

--------------------
Check out the trailer for my feature length Spaghetti-style Western:

Six and Bisti

| IP: Logged

Flavio Stabile
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 707
From: Roma, Italia
Registered: Feb 2005

posted August 14, 2013 02:57 PM

of course, I'm referring to Italy, where it should be presented on next winter...

[Wink]

| IP: Logged

David Ollerearnshaw
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1373
From: Penistone Sheffield UK
Registered: Oct 2012

posted August 15, 2013 01:55 PM

Don't the call it Super 35mm. They use all the frame area, and then mask for various formats.

Probably use by the average director who is unable to be creative to use Cinemascope type frame.

--------------------
I love the smell of film in the morning.

http://www.thereelimage.co.uk/

| IP: Logged

Ernie Zahn
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 540
From: Greenwich, CT, USA
Registered: Oct 2004

posted August 15, 2013 09:43 PM

I think this is more on the DP's end. Many Spielberg films are CinemaScope which is what makes this strange.

--------------------
Check out the trailer for my feature length Spaghetti-style Western:

Six and Bisti

| IP: Logged

David Ollerearnshaw
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1373
From: Penistone Sheffield UK
Registered: Oct 2012

posted August 16, 2013 03:52 AM

No I think the director would have the final say nowadays.

Back when the studios were running the show, the companies themselves would dictate the format to most productions, with the exception of the Cecil B. DeMille's Hitchcock's and a few others with more power.

James Cameron seems to be one who uses super35mm.

Have a look at these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WghZiiopS2E/Tj5mDwvS5KI/AAAAAAAABAw/5LG3MGmgD-s/s640/35+mm+-+Super+35+mm.JPG

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=super+35mm&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr

--------------------
I love the smell of film in the morning.

http://www.thereelimage.co.uk/

| IP: Logged

Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God

Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012

posted August 16, 2013 10:10 AM

I have one, the sound was awful, but Derek Simmonds re-recorded
it for me, now spot on.

| IP: Logged

Ernie Zahn
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 540
From: Greenwich, CT, USA
Registered: Oct 2004

posted August 16, 2013 06:23 PM

Hugh how much was it if you don't mind me asking?

--------------------
Check out the trailer for my feature length Spaghetti-style Western:

Six and Bisti

| IP: Logged

Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God

Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012

posted August 17, 2013 05:32 AM

Hi Ernie, it was a very expensive film at the time,if memory serves
me, I think it was about £350.00.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 525
From: Dallas, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted August 18, 2013 04:46 PM

Spielberg shot Jurassic Park flat (flat meaning 1.85 NOT 1.33 or 4:3) because he thought it would make the dinosaurs seem "taller" by not having as much width in the image.

Also in the professional 35mm cinema world, just because there is image on the entire frame in no way means it is supposed to be projected. If you watch a 35mm JP print with a 1.33 aperture instead of the intended 1.85 aperture, you will see boom mics and matted scenes down to 1.85 because it was never supposed to be projected. That's the point of changeable aperture plates in professional 35mm equipment.

Without doing a direct comparison, there is no way to know if the 8mm print is the original full frame and should be masked, or if it is 1.33 within the intended 1.85 frame.

| IP: Logged

Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God

Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012

posted August 19, 2013 08:14 AM

Brad is spot on there, if anyone has the "Master of The Majicks",
Vol. three, on page 231 is a superb example. I t shows a still
from "One Million Years B.C", where cavemen are perched on a
small movable stage (during the cataclysm) where the edge of
the miniature can be clearly seen, as Mike Hankin explains, this
is the full frame image that will be cropped for theatre and video
use.

| IP: Logged

Pete Richards
Master Film Handler

Posts: 302
From: Australia
Registered: Sep 2010

posted September 17, 2013 11:22 PM

I saw JP on 35mm on an ebay auction recently, it was the same, 35mm open-matte so the effects shots were wide, but the live plates where all full-frame. Very interesting!

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted September 18, 2013 12:45 PM

Not actually dealing with Jurrasic park, but just to mention ....

a number of super 8 optical features, that were originally shot 35MM flat, were printed onto super 8 optical prints without the letterboxing which would have been supplied by the individual movie theaters. A case of this is the super 8 optical feature of "Greystroke: The Legend of Tarzan" in which the last shot before credits of the jungle landscape, can be clearly seen to be a lovely matte painting, as you can see part of the "easel" in very top of the frame, (which held the matte painting in place).

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

Chip Gelmini
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1733
From: Brooksville, FL
Registered: Jun 2003

posted September 26, 2013 09:04 AM

Be advised purchasing this movie on super 8. Many of the prints have trouble with the mag stripe staying on the print.

I had a copy of this movie the sound was terrible. I almost had it redone but then sold the print bought a video projector and the DVD trilogy package.

Many of you know me for loving super 8 and that has not changed. I waited such a long time (9 months after deposit) to get this film print and it was very frustrating to have received such a bad copy.

I am quite sure who ever bought it from me is pleased because he had the equipment to do the re-dub. But the soundtrack coming off the print, and I had found one section about four inches long that was fragmenting (spliced it out) really bothered me.

The picture quality however, was very good. The print appeared to be mastered on 7 X 600 foot reels of heavy thick acetate - which I believe was the same as the theater prints on 7 reels @ 2000 feet. Because the super 8 print had the original lab cues for changeovers at the end of each reel.

Sadly this was the last time I had bought a brand new super 8 feature.......not because this was a sucko of a print....but as we all know when was the last time a new feature on super 8 was available?

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted September 26, 2013 01:21 PM

I didn't buy the whole feature (as I quite frankly couldn't afford it), but I bought the first 30 minutes of the last STAR WARS feature to come out, and the picture quality really was superb!

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

Adam Deierling
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 717
From: OH
Registered: Nov 2010

posted March 21, 2014 09:34 PM

I am sure there are other super 8 prints made open frame. My question is, are there any ways to mask the image to the proper 1.85 ratio? I know 35mm uses aperture plates. Is there anything I could use on my gs1200?

| IP: Logged

Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003

posted March 24, 2014 01:37 PM

Adam, many super 8 prints were printed open gate from 35mm originals that were intended to be projected 1.85:1 in cinemas.

There is a whole old school 3:4 TV version debate here, but perhaps for another thread...!

One 8mm that always springs to mind regarding this topic is Derann's 2 x 600ft version of "Gremlins", produced form an edited 35mm print.

There is variable soft masking throughout, and during the second part, about twenty minutes or so are hard-masked (black masking top & bottom frame) to 1.85:1.

This is because one of the original 35mm release reels was hard masked at the director's request (Joe Dante - a real film fanatic; I can only guess that there were undesirable things on show in the open gate that he really didn't want to risk sneaking onto screenings due to incorrect racking; puppeteers???, etc.??)

Anyway, it serves as a great reference for where the 1.85:1 framing should be.

Sadly, there isn't really a practical way to mask an 8mmm projector gate (although I guess someone here may have a solution!!!). Masking post-lens, as it were, is not good as it degrades the entire image.

The only real solution I found was screen masking.

I've generally used black felt screen masking with the ability to alter it top / bottom / side for various presentations.

With it set to the "hard mask" sections of Gremlins, the entire print runs in 1.85:1 as it should.

Ok, if you look at the top and bottom borders, you can often see overspill, but with a good black absorbent material, most audiences don't notice and you screen the 8mm version as it was meant to be seen theatrically. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2